Powered By Blogger

Monday, February 9, 2015

"What is Molinism and is it biblical?"


Question: "What is Molinism and is it biblical?"

Answer: Molinism is generally attributed to the 16th century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. This system of thought seeks to explain and reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. At the heart of Molinism is that God is completely sovereign and that man is free in a libertarian sense. The Molinist is trying to avoid what he calls “theological fatalism” or the view that God decrees who will be saved apart from their free choice. Today’s most ardent defender of Molinism is William Lane Craig.

The most famous distinctive in Molinism is its affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scienta media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge.

1. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths. In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths.

2. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge is knowledge of what philosophers call counterfactuals.

3. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create. God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is.

Defenders of Molinism try to show that all of God’s knowledge is self-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. To begin, God has knowledge of all necessary and possible truths. Examples of this kind of knowledge are as follows: “2 +2 = 4,” “the whole is always greater than its parts,” “one should always seek the good,” and “there are X number of possible outcomes given this series of causes.” God then has another step in His knowledge, called middle knowledge, in which He knows what free creatures would do in any given circumstance.

According to the defenders of Molinism, God knows perfectly what you would be have been like if you would have lived in Africa, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not. Accordingly, it is from this knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds, and He chooses to create the world in which the most people would be saved.

Is Molinism biblical?

Molinists point to various texts to establish that God has “middle knowledge.” For example, they point to Matthew 11:21-24 where Jesus denounces Chorazin and Bethsaida. Jesus tells those cities that “if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Molinists claim that this verse, and others like it, prove that God has knowledge of what would happen given a different set of circumstances. As such, they insist that the doctrine of middle knowledge is true.

However, Molinism is not, strictly speaking, a view that can be rebutted or defended wholly on biblical grounds. The middle knowledge view is a philosophical theology that attempts to uphold both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. This attempt is done by making subtle philosophical distinctions that make sovereignty and free will compatible. Therefore, it should be evaluated on multiple levels. It should be evaluated biblically and philosophically.

Biblically speaking, Molinists are more in line with the Arminian view. God chooses who will be saved because He knows who would choose Him. However, Molinists are more philosophically sophisticated than the typical Arminian. For example, William Lane Craig avoids the criticism that God’s decisions are dependent on man’s decisions by holding that God’s middle knowledge is not derived from His knowledge of the world. Rather, God’s middle knowledge is based on His existing natural knowledge. In this way he hopes to uphold God’s perfect omniscience. So, today’s evangelical Molinists are basically philosophically sophisticated Arminians.

Molinism is not the best way to think about God’s sovereignty and human free will. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things (Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 10:29; Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:11) – even human decisions (Proverbs 20:24; 21:1). Although God does not stir men to sin (James 1:13), He is still working everything, from individuals to nations, to the end that He has willed (Isaiah 46:10-11). God’s purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24-26). Nor does God discover or learn (1 John 3:20; Job 34:21-22; Psalm 50:11; Proverbs 15:3). All things are decreed by God’s infinitely wise counsel (Romans 11:33-36). The biblical descriptions of God’s sovereignty appear to be more robust than the account given by the Molinist.

With that in mind, it should be noted that the Molinist would agree with everything said in the above paragraph. It is not on this level that Calvinists and Molinists disagree. Where they disagree most is in the doctrines of total depravity and limited atonement. Their theological differences are in keeping with the standard Calvinist / Arminian disagreements. Philosophically speaking, Calvinists charge Molinists with an untenable view of God. For Calvinists usually hold to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity which maintains that God is atemporal and immutable. However, contemporary defenders of Molinism deny this classical doctrine.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

"What is dispensationalism and is it biblical?"


Question: "What is dispensationalism and is it biblical?"

Answer: A dispensation is an administration, a system, or a management. In theology, a dispensation is the divine administration of a period of time, a divinely appointed age. Dispensationalism is a theological system that recognizes these ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. Dispensationalism has two primary distinctives: 1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy and 2) a distinction between Israel and the church in God's program.

Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation, which means giving each word the meaning it would commonly have in everyday usage. Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and this is in no way contrary to literal interpretation. Even symbols and figurative sayings have literal meanings behind them.

There are at least three reasons why this is the best way to view Scripture. First, philosophically, the purpose of language itself seems to require that we interpret it literally. Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate with man. The second reason is biblical. Every prophecy about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus' birth, Jesus' ministry, Jesus' death, and Jesus' resurrection all occurred exactly and literally as the Old Testament predicted. There is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If literal interpretation is not used in studying the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible. Each and every person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into “what this passage says to me...” instead of “the Bible says...” Sadly, this is already the case in much of what is called biblical interpretation today.

Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the church. Dispensationalists believe that salvation has always been by faith—in God in the Old Testament and specifically in God the Son in the New Testament. Dispensationalists hold that the church has not replaced Israel in God’s program and the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the church. They believe that the promises God made to Israel (for land, many descendants, and blessings) in the Old Testament will be ultimately fulfilled in the 1000-year period spoken of in Revelation chapter 20. Dispensationalists believe that just as God is in this age focusing His attention on the church, He will again in the future focus His attention on Israel (Romans 9-11).

Using this system as a basis, dispensationalists understand the Bible to be organized into seven dispensations: Innocence (Genesis 1:1–3:7), conscience (Genesis 3:8–8:22), human government (Genesis 9:1–11:32), promise (Genesis 12:1–Exodus 19:25), law (Exodus 20:1–Acts 2:4), grace (Acts 2:4–Revelation 20:3), and the millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6). Again, these dispensations are not paths to salvation, but manners in which God relates to man. Dispensationalism, as a system, results in a premillennial interpretation of Christ’s second coming and usually a pretribulational interpretation of the rapture. To summarize, dispensationalism is a theological system that emphasizes the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, recognizes a clear distinction between Israel and the church, and organizes the Bible into the different dispensations it presents.


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html#ixzz3Qu6tsUVE

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

"What does the Bible say about lying? Is lying a sin?"


Question: "What does the Bible say about lying? Is lying a sin?"

Answer: The Bible is clear that lying is a sin and is displeasing to God. The first sin in this world involved a lie told to Eve. The Ten Commandments given to Moses includes “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).

In the early church, Ananias and Sapphira lied regarding a donation in order to make themselves look more generous than they really were. Peter’s rebuke is stern: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?” God’s judgment was sterner: the couple died as a result of their sin of lying.

Colossians 3:9 says, “Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices.” Lying is listed in 1 Timothy 1:9-11 as something practiced by the lawless. Furthermore, liars will be among those judged in the end (Revelation 21:8). In contrast, God never lies (Titus 1:2). He is the source of truth. “It is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18).

Jesus called Himself the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6), and He expects those who follow Him to be people of truth. The truth is to be expressed in love (Ephesians 4:15), offering hope to those seeking redemption from the lies of the world.


Monday, February 2, 2015

The Trinity


The Trinity
by Matt Slick

God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as the Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc. These are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God. (See also, "Another Look at the Trinity")

Jesus, the Son, is one person with two natures: Divine and Human. This is called the Hypostatic Union. The Holy Spirit is also divine in nature and is self-aware and the third person of the Trinity.

There is, though, an apparent separation of some functions among the members of the Godhead. For example, the Father chooses who will be saved (Eph. 1:4); the Son redeems them (Eph. 1:7); and the Holy Spirit seals them, (Eph. 1:13).

A further point of clarification is that God is not one person, the Father, with Jesus as a creation and the Holy Spirit as a force (Jehovah's Witnesses). Neither is He one person who took three consecutive forms, i.e., the Father, became the Son, who became the Holy Spirit. Nor is God the divine nature of the Son (where Jesus had a human nature perceived as the Son and a divine nature perceived as the Father (Oneness theology). Nor is the Trinity an office held by three separate Gods (Mormonism).

The word "person" is used to describe the three members of the Godhead because the word "person" is appropriate. A person is self-aware, can speak, love, hate, say "you," "yours," "me," "mine," etc. Each of the three persons in the Trinity demonstrates these qualities.

The chart below should help you to see how the doctrine of the Trinity is systematically derived from Scripture. The list is not exhaustive--only illustrative.

The first step is to establish the biblical doctrine that there is only one God. Then, you find that each of the persons is called God, each creates, each was involved in Jesus' resurrection, each indwells, etc. Therefore, God is one, but the one God is in three simultaneous persons. Please note that the idea of a composite unity is not a foreign concept to the Bible; after all, man and wife are said to be one flesh. The idea of a composite unity of persons is spoken of by God in Genesis (Gen. 2:24).

There is only one God
The first step is to establish how many Gods exist: one! Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5, 14, 18, 21, 22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God." (Isaiah 45:5).
“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." (Isaiah 44:6).

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Mormon Vow to assist LGBT Baptist say Mormon's are naive


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church, announced Tuesday it would back legal efforts to protect LGBT people from discrimination along with religious freedom protections. This middle ground approach is consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ, church leaders said.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, called the effort "well-intentioned but naive."

LDS leaders acknowledged that the LGBT community has faced discrimination and violence against them. LGBT people should be protected from discrimination in housing, employment and other places where discrimination exists, they said, but religious freedom must also be protected in such laws.

At the press conference, Dallin Oaks, an elder in the LDS's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, mentioned several recent examples of religious freedom not being respected, including when California universities forced Christian groups off campus, the CEO of Mozilla was forced to resign, and the mayor of Houston tried to subpoena the sermons of pastors.

"When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser," Oaks said. "Such tactics are every bit as wrong as denying access to employment, housing or public services because of race or gender."

The LDS position is consistent with four principles that are based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ, Oaks asserted: everyone has the right to live according to the dictates of their conscience as long as they do not interfere with the health or safety of others; freedom of conscience includes the right to choose one's faith, or no faith; laws should balance protecting freedom with respecting the fact the people have different values; and, persecution and retaliation of any kind are rejected.

The position is consistent with previous statements, the LDS leaders noted, such as their support for a Salt Lake City non-discrimination ordinance in 2009 and a 2010 statement condemning bullying of gay youth.

"I think the Latter-day Saints are well-intentioned but naive on where the reality stands today," said Moore, who added that he has met with LDS leaders often to talk about those issues.

"I do not think, in most instances, sexual orientation ought to matter in housing or employment," Moore continued, "but of course the proposals to address these concerns inevitably lead to targeted assaults on religious liberty."

Moore also noted that gay rights organizations have responded with "hostility" toward the LDS effort to find a middle ground.

"Nonetheless," Moore added, "I look forward to working with Mormons and others on protecting religious liberty for everyone in the years ahead."

He also reiterated that Southern Baptists believe that all LGBT people "are created in the image of God and ought to be respected," that "any sexual expression outside of marriage between one man and one woman is morally wrong," and "that freedom of conscience for those of us who dissent from the Sexual Revolution ought to be maintained."

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

"What is dispensationalism and is it biblical?"


Question: "What is dispensationalism and is it biblical?"

Answer: A dispensation is an administration, a system, or a management. In theology, a dispensation is the divine administration of a period of time, a divinely appointed age. Dispensationalism is a theological system that recognizes these ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. Dispensationalism has two primary distinctives: 1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy and 2) a distinction between Israel and the church in God's program.

Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation, which means giving each word the meaning it would commonly have in everyday usage. Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and this is in no way contrary to literal interpretation. Even symbols and figurative sayings have literal meanings behind them.

There are at least three reasons why this is the best way to view Scripture. First, philosophically, the purpose of language itself seems to require that we interpret it literally. Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate with man. The second reason is biblical. Every prophecy about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus' birth, Jesus' ministry, Jesus' death, and Jesus' resurrection all occurred exactly and literally as the Old Testament predicted. There is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If literal interpretation is not used in studying the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible. Each and every person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into “what this passage says to me...” instead of “the Bible says...” Sadly, this is already the case in much of what is called biblical interpretation today.

Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the church. Dispensationalists believe that salvation has always been by faith—in God in the Old Testament and specifically in God the Son in the New Testament. Dispensationalists hold that the church has not replaced Israel in God’s program and the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the church. They believe that the promises God made to Israel (for land, many descendants, and blessings) in the Old Testament will be ultimately fulfilled in the 1000-year period spoken of in Revelation chapter 20. Dispensationalists believe that just as God is in this age focusing His attention on the church, He will again in the future focus His attention on Israel (Romans 9-11).

Using this system as a basis, dispensationalists understand the Bible to be organized into seven dispensations: Innocence (Genesis 1:1–3:7), conscience (Genesis 3:8–8:22), human government (Genesis 9:1–11:32), promise (Genesis 12:1–Exodus 19:25), law (Exodus 20:1–Acts 2:4), grace (Acts 2:4–Revelation 20:3), and the millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6). Again, these dispensations are not paths to salvation, but manners in which God relates to man. Dispensationalism, as a system, results in a premillennial interpretation of Christ’s second coming and usually a pretribulational interpretation of the rapture. To summarize, dispensationalism is a theological system that emphasizes the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, recognizes a clear distinction between Israel and the church, and organizes the Bible into the different dispensations it presents.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html#ixzz3Q7D5FJZF

Monday, January 26, 2015

Should Churches Practice Foot Washing as Worship Ritual?


Washing of Feet - John 13

Should Churches Practice Foot Washing as Worship Ritual?

Did Jesus teach foot washing as a church ritual in religious worship assemblies? Does washing of feet (footwashing) in modern denominations serve the same purpose and is it done in the same way as Jesus did it?
What did the Lord intend to teach in John 13 when He washed the disciples feet? Did He institute a church religious worship ritual, or did He set an example of individual humble service? Does washing of feet (footwashing) in modern denominations serve the same purpose and is it done in the same way as Christ did it? Do Bible examples show that washing of feet was an individual act of hospitality or personal hygiene?
Introduction:
Some churches practice washing of feet as a church worship ritual.
foot washing ... - a religious rite practiced by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church on Maundy Thursday of Holy Week (preceding Easter) and by members of some other Christian churches in their worship services. - Encyclopedia Britannica (under "foot washing") at www.britannica.com/eb/
The principal priest or prelate of the church assisted by deacon and subdeacon washes the feet of twelve poor men. The Pope washes the feet of thirteen poor persons, all of whom are priests - Catholic Dictionary, p 404.
In 694 the Seventeenth Synod of Toledo commanded all bishops and priests in a position of superiority under pain of excommunication to wash the feet of those subject to them. - Catholic Encyclopedia (under "Washing of Hands and Feet") via www.newadvent.org/cathen
The purpose of this study is to examine the teaching of Scripture about the practice of foot washing.
What did Jesus do when He washed His disciples feet? Did He intend to institute a ritual to be repeated by Christians in church worship meetings? What lessons did He intend to teach?
Consider the Bible teaching:
I. The Example of Jesus in John 13
The circumstances
Luke 22:14-27 and other accounts show that, on this very occasion (as well as other times), the apostles argued among themselves about which of them was greatest and would have the highest positions in the kingdom. They had a serious problem with pride and self-exaltation. (See also Mark 9:33-36; 10:35-45; Luke 9:46-48; Matthew 20:20-28.)
They may have been especially excited by the great honor the people showed when they entered the city with the Lord in the Triumphal Entry. Like other people, they believed Jesus was ready to announce the beginning of His earthly kingdom. As part of His inner circle, they struggled over who would be greatest in that kingdom. Apparently, no one wanted to accept menial or humble tasks, such as washing one another's feet after their journey.
On such occasions in the past, Jesus had tried to teach the apostles humility, even explaining that He Himself had come to serve and give His life for others (Matthew 20:28). Finally, on this occasion He determined to demonstrate by His own example the humility the apostles needed to learn.
[Cf. Philippians 2:1-8.]
Jesus' action
Note what Jesus did:
Vv 3-5 - He took a towel, poured water in a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet and dry them with the towel.
Vv 6-11 - Peter objected to Jesus' washing His feet. Jesus said Peter could have no part with him if Peter refused. Then Peter wanted his hands and head washed too, but Jesus said these were already clean (he had already bathed) and only his feet needed to be washed.
Vv 12-17 - He asked if they understood what He had done. If He, as the Teacher and Lord, had washed their feet, then they should wash one another's feet. He had given them an example, that they should do as He had done to them. A servant is not greater than His master, so they would be blessed if they did these things.
Observations regarding Jesus' actions
* The disciples must have needed to have their feet washed.
Jesus refused to wash Peter's hands and head, since those had already been bathed. But Jesus' expressly stated that their feet needed to be washed in order to make them completely clean. So, washing their feet met a physical "need." It follows that, just as He did not wash their hands and heads, so He would not have washed their feet if they were already clean. (Presumably, their feet had become dirty on the way to the meeting room.)
* Jesus washed both feet of each disciple.
This expressly follows from the fact that He was washing what needed to be washed. If one foot needed washed, then both feet needed it. He and Peter expressly stated that Jesus washed Peter's "feet" (plural), just as He had also done for the others.
* He said they should wash one another's feet (v14).
This was not something that certain designated foot washers should do for others who don't wash feet. But all were equally responsible to do it.
* But Jesus was teaching also a deeper lesson than just the need for clean feet.
He stated or implied more than once that they did not understand (or needed to consider carefully so they would understand) what He was doing - vv 7,23. Peter obviously misunderstood. The disciples obviously understood that He was washing their feet, but His statements show that He was teaching a deeper lesson.
* By washing the disciples' feet, Jesus took upon Himself the humblest of duties, generally left to a servant.
None of the other disciples would lower himself to do this for the others, so Jesus did it Himself. Hence, the One, Whom they all knew to be the greatest among them, voluntarily chose to do the humblest task among them. This is exactly what He had taught them in words on other occasions (see the passages above).
* After washing their feet, Jesus said they should wash one another's feet as He had done (v14).
He had given them an example, so they should do as He had done (v15). They would be happy if they did as He had done (v17).
This would sound like a direct command to imitate His example. But the question remains as to exactly what it was that the disciples should imitate. Must they literally wash feet? Did He mean for them to practice a regular church worship ritual, like the Lord's Supper? Or did He set some other example? As already stated, His statements implied a deeper meaning than just washing of feet. What was the lesson to be imitated?
II. Other Bible Passages about Foot Washing
Washing of Feet as an Act of Hospitality
Bible examples
Old Testament examples
Genesis 18:1-5 - Three men (angels) came to Abraham's tent as they traveled to Sodom. He offered water to wash their feet and food to refresh them. It is not clear here who washed the men's feet; but it is clear that, like the offer of food, this was an act of hospitality to provide refreshment for travelers.
A nearly identical event occurred in each of the following cases:
* When the men visited Lot (Genesis 19:1-3)
* When Abraham's servant visited Laban (Genesis 24:17-24,31-33)
* When Joseph's brothers went to Egypt for food (Genesis 43:24,25).
* When an old man in Gibeah provided lodging for a Levite and his concubine who were traveling (Judges 19:16-21). [Note that the old man said he was providing for their "needs."]
* When David's servants visited Abigail to invite her to become David's wife, she said she would be a servant to wash the feet of David's servants (1 Samuel 25:40,41). Note that Abigail stated that washing their feet would be an act of service to them, and she willingly offered to do that service.
In each case, hospitality was shown to travelers by offering food for the people (and perhaps their animals), a place to spend the night (if needed), and washing their feet or at least offering them water to wash their feet.
Two other Bible examples describe people who wash their own feet in their own dwelling as an act of personal refreshment or hygiene (2 Samuel 11:8; Song of Solomon 5:3).
New Testament examples
Luke 7:37,38,44-46 - In the home of Simon the Pharisee, a woman washed Jesus' feet with her tears. When Simon criticized her, Jesus pointed out that, when He entered Simon's house, Simon provided no water for Him to wash His feet, nor had he greeted Him with a kiss, nor anointed His head with oil. All these acts were intended as expressions of hospitality and respect for one who visited. Simon had not done them for Jesus, but the woman had done them for Him.
1 Timothy 5:10 - Paul described a widow indeed as one who lodged strangers, washed the saints feet, relieved the afflicted, and diligently followed every good work. All the other works in the list were acts of service to meet the needs of others. Washing the feet of saints is expressly associated with hospitality in lodging strangers, just as in the Old Testament cases.
Observations
Note the following facts based on these Scriptures.
* Washing feet was an act of hospitality or personal hygiene.
This is the pattern of each of these Scriptures. This makes sense in that land where people often traveled by foot, wearing sandals, walking in hot, dusty sand. Washing the feet was done to comfort guests, meet their needs, and welcome them. When one person did it for others, it was considered a menial task of service.
* It follows that washing of feet was an act of service to meet a need.
It was not a ritual done as an act of worship. People had a physical need, just like they might need food or a place to spend the night. Hospitality involved providing whatever would meet that need.
It also follows that there was no purpose in washing the feet of those whose feet were clean. Such people would not need their feet washed.
* Since the purpose was to meet a need, both feet were washed for those who needed it.
It makes no sense to wash one foot. If people came from a journey, both feet would need to be washed. Meeting their need would require washing both feet.
* In none of these cases was washing of feet a worship ritual done in the context of worship meetings.
It was an individual act done as an act of hospitality to visitors.
Washing the Feet of Priests in the Tabernacle
Passages
Exodus 30:19-21; 40:30-32 - God commanded Moses to make a laver to place outside the tabernacle where the priests could wash their hands and feet before entering the tabernacle or offering sacrifices. They were commanded to do this on penalty of death.
Observations
This was done in religious worship, but note its characteristics:
* The priests washed, not just their feet, but also their hands.
* The priests were to wash their own hands and feet, not the feet of others.
* This was done by priests in the tabernacle. There is no evidence the people in general were commanded to wash the feet of others or to have their own feet washed.
* The time, place, and occasion was specifically stated: when they went into the tabernacle and when they offered sacrifices. There is no evidence it was done to other people in the midst of a worship assembly.
* Specific penalty was stated for failure: death.
* This pertained entirely to the Old Testament tabernacle and animal sacrifices, none of which is part of the New Testament church.
These examples of the priests in the tabernacle are included in this study simply for completeness. It should be quite obvious that Jesus' act in John 13 is not at all the same. He was not a priest under the Old Law (those priests had to be of the tribe of Levi), He did not wash the disciples' feet at the tabernacle, nor was He offering animal sacrifices, He washed other people's feet rather than His own hands and feet, etc. The example of the priests does not in any way explain what Jesus did, nor does it authorize a church foot washing ritual.
III. Foot Washing as a Modern Church Worship Ritual
As quoted in our introduction, churches that practice foot washing do so as a religious ritual in their worship assemblies, like the Lord's Supper (in fact, it is often associated with the Lord's Supper). Did Jesus intend to institute foot washing as a church worship ritual (or even like the priest's washing before entering the tabernacle), or should His example be associated with hospitality and serving others as an individual act?
Consider the differences between what Jesus did and church worship rituals:
1. John 13 nowhere states this should be a ritual of worship done in the assemblies of the church.
Where does the passage say feet should be washed in a worship meeting or as an act of worship? Nothing is the passage so states. Any such conclusion is an assumption.
2. No other passage gives any example or any indication that Christians did this in church worship assemblies.
If the Lord intended this to be a religious ritual done in their assemblies, would we not find examples of it being done, like we find examples of the Lord's Supper being done in assemblies?
3. The only passage after this that even mentions feet washing is 1 Timothy 5:10.
The context there shows that the act is a personal, individual act done as one has the opportunity, like other qualities listed in that context. The widow indeed is hospitable to strangers, washes feet of the saints, and relieves the afflicted. There is no indication of church assemblies or church action of any kind.
4. No passage anywhere states when or how often this ritual should be practiced or what purpose it would serve.
It is true that Jesus at this time instituted the Lord's Supper. But when the Lord instituted a religious rite, we would expect Him to give us the necessary information to carry it out. So, we have other Scriptures that teach Christians to have the Lord's Supper in their worship assemblies (1 Corinthians 11:17ff). The time and frequency when it should be done are also taught (Acts 20:7). The meaning and purpose of the Lord's Supper is also clearly stated several times (1 Corinthians 11:17ff; 10:16f; Matthew 26:26-28; etc.).
What the Old Testament priests did when they washed their hands and feet was different from what Jesus taught. But it too illustrates that the Lord gave all necessary instructions for religious rites. He said exactly who should do it, where it should be done, when it should be done, and what the penalty would be for failure.
Regarding foot washing, we have no instruction to do it as a church function, no instruction to do it in the worship assembly, we are never told what purpose any such act might serve, nor are we told when or how often to do it. Washing of feet lacks every essential element of a church ritual.
5. Other Old and New Testaments passages regarding washing of feet generally view it as an act of hospitality and service done by individuals to meet people's needs.
See the references already studied.
Even when the priests washed in tabernacle service, they did not wash the feet of others, nor did they do so in a congregational worship assembly.
There is simply no evidence that foot washing is a church worship ritual.
6. When modern denominations attempt to practice "foot-washing," that which they do is surely not what the Scriptures describe.
"How to Conduct a Foot Washing Service," by Ken Collins, says:
"For the people whose feet are being washed: Instruct them to come to the service with clean feet in clean footgear ... Each person removes the footgear from one foot. It doesn't matter which foot. The foot-washer places the bowl under the person's bare foot, pours water on the foot, and dries it with the towel." [emphasis added]
In denominations people know ahead of time their feet will be washed, so they make sure they are clean!
Who wants everybody in a church assembly seeing and smelling your dirty feet? But this defeats the whole purpose of the washing, which was to meet a need as an act of hospitality. Jesus clearly said that what was already clean did not "need" to be washed. The feet washed in ritual ceremonies today are clean; therefore, by Jesus' own statement they need not be washed. His act was intended to meet a "need." Modern denominational ritual foot washing involves just the opposite: Feet are washed that do not need to be washed.
Denominations wash only one foot of each person who is washed, because it is only a ritual: people don't need both feet washed.
But Jesus washed both feet (plural), because if a man had one foot dirty the other would be too. But the same reasoning that leads people to leave one foot unwashed would likewise tell them to not wash either foot. Neither foot really needs to be washed; so as Jesus explained, there is no purpose in washing either one!
Nor can they appeal to the Old Testament example of the priests, since they washed both their feet and their hands.
Jesus said that the disciples should wash one another's feet, not just that certain designated leaders (priests or Pope) should wash the feet of others.
It was a responsibility of all to do.
And again, they cannot appeal to the Old Testament priests, since they washed their own feet and hands.
Further, the main lesson Jesus was trying to teach His apostles was humility.
But the modern denominational ritual involves making show and pomp of ones humility! One who is truly humble does not seek or deliberately set up rituals by which he can demonstrate his humility!
So the modern denominational ritual violates both aspects of what the Lord intended: It is not really an act of humility, and it does not really meet a need. It is nothing like what the Lord really did.
7. The fact Jesus said more than once that the disciples did not understand what He was doing, indicates that simply washing feet was not the real point of the lesson.
They could clearly see He was doing that (note John 13:7,12).
III. The Lesson Jesus Intended to Teach
If Jesus did not intend to institute a church worship ritual, what lesson did He intend to teach?
Jesus example had all the characteristics of an act of hospitality and humble service to meet the needs of others.
Perhaps there is even more to it than this, but at least this much seems to be involved: The 12 had disputed among themselves about which of them would have the greatest place of honor in Jesus' kingdom (see notes above). Jesus' act showed that what is important is service, not authority or greatness in man's ways of looking at greatness. (Cf. Matthew 20:20-28.)
The disciples needed a lesson on having the humility to serve one another with kindness, rather than competing with one another to see who can excel others in honor and power. The 12 refused to humble themselves to serve one another in this way. So, Jesus took the opportunity to serve them and thereby teach them the lesson of humble service to meet the needs of others. If the Lord performed this kind of humble service, surely the disciples should do the same. To make this a ritual in the church assembly misses the point.
Compare this to Luke 10:37.
Here Jesus plainly described how a Samaritan helped a needy Jew, who had been beaten and robbed. Then Jesus commanded us to "go and do likewise" -- just like in John 13. Was Jesus here making a church ritual out of helping people beaten by robbers! Obviously, not. He was illustrating love for our neighbor, teaching us to show care and kindness to help people in whatever their need.
The application to today would be that anytime others really need our help, we should be humble and kind enough to willingly serve in whatever capacity they need. We must not think we are too good to do certain tasks.
Some people today may actually need their feet washed (such as elderly people, sick people, or children who cannot bathe themselves, etc.), though this would be much less common in our society than in theirs. But it is done to meet a genuine need, not as a church ritual for people whose feet are already clean.
And there are plenty of other opportunities to serve. The lesson to be learned is that every Christian should be humble enough to do for others what they need someone to do for them. When we understand that this is the example Jesus set, then we should do as He did.
Note: If you would like to study further about related Bible topics, we have a number of other study materials on our web site that should interest you. Please see the links listed below.
(C) Copyright 2007, David E. Pratte